This morning, the defendant pleaded guilty before me to one count of trafficking in a dangerous drug, contrary to sections 4(1)(a) and (3) of the Dangerous Drugs Ordinance, Chapter 134. He accepted the prosecution’s Summary of Facts.
Briefly, on 14 September 2015, the defendant was detained for clearance when he arrived at the Shenzhen Bay Control Point in a private vehicle, prior to leaving Hong Kong. At the time, the defendant was on board as one of the passengers. Upon a search conducted on the defendant, he was found wearing some six pairs of underpants and after the removal of four of them, a black plastic bag containing three more layers of plastic bag were found. Inside the bags were 82 packets containing a total of 1.36 kilogrammes of a mixture containing 727 grammes of heroin hydrochloride, the drug now particularised in the count.
The drug seized had a retail value of about HK$1.07 million.
Under caution, the defendant stated that he had received the packages at the Hong Kong International Airport from the brother of “IK” and he would receive some US$2,500. He had suspected that it was not a “good thing”.
During a subsequent video-recorded interview, the defendant repeated the same and provided further particulars, including that he had been told by the brother of IK to make sure that the police did not get him, that he had to put the packages on his body and that he was passing through Hong Kong on his way to Guangzhou to do some textile business.
This morning, as I said, the defendant accepted the prosecution’s Summary of Facts and admitted and accepted that he was trafficking in the seized dangerous drug.
The Defendant’s Background and Mitigation
The defendant came from Uganda and is now aged 41. He is married with four daughters. It was said that the defendant has attained lower secondary level education and was a business man in his homeland. The defendant has not had any previous criminal convictions in Hong Kong.
In mitigation, Mr Arthur, for the defendant, told the court that the defendant has led a good and responsible life before the commission of the present offence and that it was merely out of stupidity that he now has to come before the court to face his sentence. Mr Arthur submitted that the defendant should be sentenced on the basis of him being a courier and that he had been used by the drug syndicate. The defendant pleaded guilty and is truly remorseful.
He has also participated in Father Wotherspoon’s campaign. Further, Mr Arthur said that the defendant had not actually received any reward, but he now faces the tragedy of having to separate from his dear family.
The defendant has himself supplemented Mr Arthur’s mitigation and has given to the court letters written on his behalf by Father Wotherspoon and other persons in the defendant’s religious circle. All speak of the defendant’s belief in God and of the assistance he has offered in the campaign. Letters from the defendant’s family members were also provided to the court.
The Sentence
The tariffs for trafficking in heroin were laid down in R v Lau Tak Ming & Others [1990] 2 HKLR 370 and in HKSAR v Abdallah [2009] 2 HKLRD 437. For trafficking between 600 and 1,200 grammes of heroin, a term of 20 to 23 years’ imprisonment is called for. Further, in the case of Abdallah, the Court of Appeal stated that when an international element is involved in the trafficking, then for amounts above 1 kilogramme, an enhancement of not less than 2 years is appropriate.
Having considered the facts of this case and the amount of drugs involved, I take the view that an initial starting point of 20½ years is appropriate. Moreover, as the defendant was caught when he was about to take the drugs to leave Hong Kong and to go to the mainland, there was certainly the cross-border element regarding his trafficking activity. For this, I would enhance the starting point by 1½ years. See HKSAR v Chung Ping Kun, CACC 85/2014 (2 July 2014). Therefore, the overall starting point is one of 22 years.
The defendant pleaded guilty; he would receive the full one-third reduction for that. Although the defendant has assisted in Father Wotherspoon’s campaign, I take it to reflect his genuine remorse and that element is subsumed in the one-third reduction which I have mentioned.
As to the defendant’s personal circumstances, although the court is sympathetic about the difficulties his family and his young children have to face, such is not a mitigating factor which could entitle him to a further reduction in sentence in this type of serious offences. Therefore, other than the one-third reduction which I have mentioned, there is nothing which would warrant any further reduction in sentence.
The defendant is therefore to serve a term of 14 years and 8 months’ imprisonment for this offence.